Cross sectional study on proportion of sulfonylureas among various oral antidiabetic drugs using for Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, analyzed from NSAID Study-2.

AIM: We aimed to investigate the certainty of using sulfonylureas in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by analyzing data from the 2018 Nationwide Survey on Actual Intervention for T2DM by Japanese Practitioners (NSAID Study). METHODS: Of the 6525 and 1545 participants in the NSAID Study under the care of general practitioners (GP) and diabetes specialists (SP), respectively, we included 5423 (83.1%) and 1058 (68.5%) patients who were treated with only oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) by GPs and SPs, respectively, in the analysis. RESULTS: Among the seven OAD classes in monotherapy, sulfonylureas were the third and fifth most prescribed OADs by GPs (7.1%) and SPs (6.4%), respectively. Sulfonylurea usage increased with combination therapy. Glimepiride was the most commonly prescribed sulfonylurea. Patients who used sulfonylureas had higher hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and lower body mass indices (BMIs) than patients who did not use sulfonylureas. CONCLUSION: The results of this study clearly demonstrated that, among the OADs, sulfonylureas were not frequently used in monotherapy, although the opportunity of using sulfonylurea increased with the number of OADs prescribed in combination therapies by both GPs and SPs in Japan. Moreover, low-dose glimepiride was the most-prescribed sulfonylurea for Japanese T2DM patients, especially for those who were lean and had higher HbA1c levels.

Present status of sulfonylurea treatment for type 2 diabetes in Japan: second report of a cross-sectional survey of 15,652 patients.

Sulfonylureas are commonly used for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, some clinical concerns regarding their use have grown over the past decade. Thus, results of a previous Japan-wide cross-sectional survey of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were analyzed to determine the present status and problems associated with the use of sulfonylureas in the treatment of T2DM by general practitioners (GPs) and diabetes specialists. Of 15,652 patients across 721 clinics and hospitals from the previous survey, 15,350 were diagnosed as T2DM (14,312 by GPs and 1,038 by specialists). For each patient, data were collected for HbA1c levels, age, height, body weight, and treatment modality. Of T2DM patients being treated by GPs, 35.4% and 60.0% received sulfonylureas in entire oral drugs or as monotherapy, respectively, compared with 29.2% and 61.2% of patients, respectively, treated by specialists. Of the patients treated with sulfonylurea monotherapy, 1335 patients (35.2%) achieved HbA1c <6.5%, whereas HbA1c was >or=8.0% in 531 patients (14.0%). Patients with HbA1c levels >or=8.0% had a higher body mass index, used glibenclamide more frequently, and used higher doses of sulfonylureas than patients in whom HbA1c levels were <6.5%. In conclusion, the present study shows that sulfonylureas are central in the treatment of T2DM in Japan. However, careful consideration of suitable patients, agents, and doses is necessary to achieve appropriate glycemic control.

Nationwide Survey on Actual Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes by Japanese Practitioners (NSAID Study-1): Glycemic, Weight, and Blood Pressure Management.

INTRODUCTION: Considering the increase in the number of patients with diabetes, the quality of diabetes care provided by general practitioners (GP) is critical for preventing complications. We performed a nationwide survey to determine whether the diabetic management provided to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by Japanese practitioners is appropriate. METHODS: We randomly selected 463 clinics throughout Japan; 8070 patients with T2DM (6525 and 1545 under the care of GP and specialists [SP], respectively) were enrolled. We obtained information on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, age, height, body weight, diabetes type and treatment modality, blood pressure (BP), and hypertension or dyslipidemia from each patient. Additionally, we surveyed the collaborations among physicians. RESULTS: The median HbA1c level of patients treated by GP was lower than that of patients treated by SP (6.8 [6.2-7.3], median [interquartile range] vs. 6.9 [6.5-7.5], p < 0.0001). The percentage of patients receiving insulin therapy was also higher (23.8%) among patients treated by SP than among those treated by GP (8.6%). Patients not receiving insulin therapy showed lower median HbA1c levels than those receiving insulin therapy, irrespective of the care provider. The mean body mass index of patients with HbA1c levels < 6.9% or > 9.0% cared for by SP was lower than that of those cared for by GP. The rate of target BP (< 140/90 mmHg) achievement was 73.2% and 73.3% among patients with T2DM and hypertension cared for by GP and SP, respectively. Furthermore, 88.2% of GP reported that consulting with SP was easy. CONCLUSION: The present study clearly demonstrated that many patients with T2DM are appropriately cared for by general practitioners instead of diabetes specialists in Japan, although the number of diabetes specialists is insufficient to cover all patients with diabetes.

The status of glycemic control by general practitioners and specialists for diabetes in Japan: a cross-sectional survey of 15,652 patients with diabetes mellitus.

To determine the status of diabetes care by general practitioners and diabetes specialists in Japan, we conducted a nation-wide cross-sectional survey. We asked 8112 clinics and hospitals randomly, from throughout Japan, to participate in this study and 721 facilities agreed. A total of 15,652 patients aged from 15 to 97 with type 1 and type 2 diabetes were enrolled. Of these, 14,560 (93.0%) and 1092 (7.0%) patients were cared for by general practitioners and diabetes specialists, respectively. HbA1c levels were measured by a latex agglutination method, and age, height, body weight, type of diabetes and treatment modality were obtained from each patient. Mean HbA1c level for all patients treated by general practitioners was significantly lower than for those treated by the diabetes specialists (6.8+/-1.2% vs. 7.0+/-1.2%, p=0.0002). Mean HbA1c level for patients without insulin therapy was lower than for those treated with insulin, irrespective of caring physician. The proportion of patients treated with insulin therapy by diabetes specialists was higher (17.7%) than that by general practitioners (6.5%). This study showed that average HbA1c levels in Japanese patients treated by either general practitioners or specialists was acceptable, regardless of study limitations or bias.